Re: (dsssl) Heresy

Subject: Re: (dsssl) Heresy
From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:39:30 +0100
At 11:07 07/04/2003 -0400, Pavel Tolkachev wrote:

> I guess if you are at home with lisp, that gives a natural bias.
No, I actually do not like Lisp. I started to learn it couple of times (eMacs lisp, etc..) and always stopped trying after less than an hour. DSSSL is the first I could somehow manage (I am still not a fan of or someone really knowledgeable in Lisp). Comparing with others, I like that DSSSL is SGML so that I can use marked sections as a kind of pre-processor, and that I can use DocBook as a rich source of examples. What I was actually saying is that IMHO XSL is *even* uglier, than Lisp.

I don't think either are ugly, and with tool help (emacs, both cases) make work easier.

I could not find anything better than gvim to use with DocBook

Each to his/her own?

You know, I beleive there is something inherent in this lack of a commonly recognized good tool replacing the text editor: SGML (or XML) are languages for expressing ideas or data in some areas, defined by DTDs, and not just any ideas or data but those of them that are supposedly "free from representation" or at least must allow more than one representation. These languages has been designed to perform this their main function well. If the language (i.e. the means to communicate those ideas between people) that we selected for it, whether it is SGML or XML is worse than the means suggested by some tool, let us standardize and use this tool's language..

There's the difficulty. One mans meat is another mans poison, particularly with computer tools.

Sorry again for the off-topic. I was just pleased to learn that I am not alone (such an odd guy who prefers vim for *ML autoring to any tool).

Or emacs, or ......

regards DaveP

DSSSList info and archive:

Current Thread